Froufrou, -- has it ever occurred to you that government has never been delegated the constitutional power to give "special treatment" to alcohol, tobacco and firearms? Or that what gov't might "want" is unconstitutional?
-- No level of government in the USA is empowered to "LIMIT" or "-- deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. --" [14th]
As Justice Harlan recognized:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; -- the freedom of speech, press, and religion; -- the right to keep and bear arms; -- the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
Prohibitive laws over-regulating alcohol, tobacco and firearms are "substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints".
I don't pretend to be a constitutional or, for that matter, any other kind of attorney. What I hear is the inference that our elected officials have lead us down the wrong path on some things, is that about it?
I get your point, and I appreciate the way in which you present it, sans rant. Where I have trouble is the variations between state and federal laws. Some of the posts here seem to suggest that the Constitution and its amendments, as Law of the Land, shall supercede state laws, ergo leaving them moot at the outset.
Bottom line, the 'like it or not' has everything to do with living the letter of the law vs. breaking it. In TX, I believe the wording is something like, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." The word ignorance is here taken to mean "ignoring" the law as well as being unaware of its existence.